by Terrence Rosenberg">RESPONSE to "The Reservoir": Towards a Poetic Model of Research in Design by Terrence Rosenberg
http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes1/research/papers/wpades/vol1/rosenberg2.html
(Above is where the reading can be found, it also has the Figures that the reading talks about, which is a little bit helpful, as this started to annoy me as the printout reading that I had has no diagrams.)
The part that talks about "the hunch" I found very interesting, and it finally made sense when all those times in critiques, especially in 2nd year, when we were trying to explain why we designed some things one way or another, and couldn't, and all we could say was "because I like it" and got the evil glare or "give me a real reason" from Luke or Aaron... It all sort of makes sense now.
When Alex Seago writes: "... the process of discovery in much successful research work is, in reality, a combination of rigorous methodology and the following up of intuitive "hunches". (Seago 1994, p.5.)
ok, now I’m not saying that we had rigorous methodology behind our projects in 2nd year, BUT "the hunches" under which we (or at least I) made some of my aesthetic decisions makes sense. Although I think here, he is also talking about hunches in research topics/avenues.
“The ‘hunch’ is so slim that it is not possible to develop techniques and dynamics or indeed a methodology for it.”
“… in this position it is all “hunch”, the imagination is unfettered by criticism, unforced and involuted – exclusively and only valuable as a ‘private enthusiasm’. The “hunch” expands inordinately but only in relation to the individual.”
now the part about Ptolemaic, homocentric conception, neo-Dionysian, Apollonian etc, had me all confused, and by the end of the second page I had lost track of what he was talking about, and started to fall asleep (could have also been the fact it was 7.30am, and I was on the train to work, and the sun was shining in my eye while tge guy in the seat next to me, with his two-sizes-too-small-suite was too close for my liking...) Anyway... I had to wait until I could look all of those words up, which I have, and tagged them on to the end of this post.
now, back to the reading: Ground and Open Water
Loved this section. Being a creative person, it helps when complex stuff is visually described, diagrammatised. So, the pull to originality (ground) versus the space of originality which has not yet been established (open water) are the two forces that make up “the hunch”.
I also found the following very interesting: “Research in open water may be imagined as swimming and diving. In open water the swimmer or diver is immersed and at the mercy of the element, water, whereas, on land, the element lies outside the person digging or building and is very much controlled by them.”
My Research will need to start on the ground, but hopefully can move to open water…
Conventional research = Centripetal.
Conventional research comes up with a question and develops a research strategy in advance of the process. The research channel is clear, focussed and predetermined. (I often find myself coming up with a solution when faced with a design problem without going through the whole process, I work backwards. BUT, I think successful research benefits from a less limiting process.) It is true, that simple and clear idea progresses to a simple and clear outcome.
‘Poetic’ research develops from an interactive space between substantiation and deviation. Background and foreground. Poetic enquiry evolves from both fields, and not predetermined. (established in open water)
Another good analogy along the same line of thinking is: “Water signifies liquidity in thought and ground a site of determined thinking. The Reservoir is used notionally to plot a creative search (a finding!)” I have always been a determined thinker in my research in the past, very much both feet on the grounds. I will aim in the years research to steer towards the water.
The Three Triggers is something I am already familiar with from previous years students, although the idea of weaving together the three unrelated triggers is new to me, and is something I would like to try.
Paradigms: pattern or model
Apollonian: characterized by clarity, harmony and restraint. In the philosophy of Friedrick Nietzsche, of or embodying the power of critical reason as opposed to the creative-intuitive.
Postulates: to assume or assert the truth, reality, or necessity of, especially as a basis of an argument.
Dionysian: in the philosophy of Nietzsche, of or displaying creative-intuitive power as opposed to critical-rational power.
Homocentric: diverging from or converging to the same point.
Centripetal: directed toward the centre, operating by centripetal force.
Centrifugal: moving or directed outward from the centre.
Syntagm: a syntactic string of words that form a part of some larger syntactic unit. (syntagma: sequence of words in a relationship to one another.
(from dictionary.com)
(Above is where the reading can be found, it also has the Figures that the reading talks about, which is a little bit helpful, as this started to annoy me as the printout reading that I had has no diagrams.)
The part that talks about "the hunch" I found very interesting, and it finally made sense when all those times in critiques, especially in 2nd year, when we were trying to explain why we designed some things one way or another, and couldn't, and all we could say was "because I like it" and got the evil glare or "give me a real reason" from Luke or Aaron... It all sort of makes sense now.
When Alex Seago writes: "... the process of discovery in much successful research work is, in reality, a combination of rigorous methodology and the following up of intuitive "hunches". (Seago 1994, p.5.)
ok, now I’m not saying that we had rigorous methodology behind our projects in 2nd year, BUT "the hunches" under which we (or at least I) made some of my aesthetic decisions makes sense. Although I think here, he is also talking about hunches in research topics/avenues.
“The ‘hunch’ is so slim that it is not possible to develop techniques and dynamics or indeed a methodology for it.”
“… in this position it is all “hunch”, the imagination is unfettered by criticism, unforced and involuted – exclusively and only valuable as a ‘private enthusiasm’. The “hunch” expands inordinately but only in relation to the individual.”
now the part about Ptolemaic, homocentric conception, neo-Dionysian, Apollonian etc, had me all confused, and by the end of the second page I had lost track of what he was talking about, and started to fall asleep (could have also been the fact it was 7.30am, and I was on the train to work, and the sun was shining in my eye while tge guy in the seat next to me, with his two-sizes-too-small-suite was too close for my liking...) Anyway... I had to wait until I could look all of those words up, which I have, and tagged them on to the end of this post.
now, back to the reading: Ground and Open Water
Loved this section. Being a creative person, it helps when complex stuff is visually described, diagrammatised. So, the pull to originality (ground) versus the space of originality which has not yet been established (open water) are the two forces that make up “the hunch”.
I also found the following very interesting: “Research in open water may be imagined as swimming and diving. In open water the swimmer or diver is immersed and at the mercy of the element, water, whereas, on land, the element lies outside the person digging or building and is very much controlled by them.”
My Research will need to start on the ground, but hopefully can move to open water…
Conventional research = Centripetal.
Conventional research comes up with a question and develops a research strategy in advance of the process. The research channel is clear, focussed and predetermined. (I often find myself coming up with a solution when faced with a design problem without going through the whole process, I work backwards. BUT, I think successful research benefits from a less limiting process.) It is true, that simple and clear idea progresses to a simple and clear outcome.
‘Poetic’ research develops from an interactive space between substantiation and deviation. Background and foreground. Poetic enquiry evolves from both fields, and not predetermined. (established in open water)
Another good analogy along the same line of thinking is: “Water signifies liquidity in thought and ground a site of determined thinking. The Reservoir is used notionally to plot a creative search (a finding!)” I have always been a determined thinker in my research in the past, very much both feet on the grounds. I will aim in the years research to steer towards the water.
The Three Triggers is something I am already familiar with from previous years students, although the idea of weaving together the three unrelated triggers is new to me, and is something I would like to try.
Paradigms: pattern or model
Apollonian: characterized by clarity, harmony and restraint. In the philosophy of Friedrick Nietzsche, of or embodying the power of critical reason as opposed to the creative-intuitive.
Postulates: to assume or assert the truth, reality, or necessity of, especially as a basis of an argument.
Dionysian: in the philosophy of Nietzsche, of or displaying creative-intuitive power as opposed to critical-rational power.
Homocentric: diverging from or converging to the same point.
Centripetal: directed toward the centre, operating by centripetal force.
Centrifugal: moving or directed outward from the centre.
Syntagm: a syntactic string of words that form a part of some larger syntactic unit. (syntagma: sequence of words in a relationship to one another.
(from dictionary.com)
19 March 2007 at 14:23
Hi Galina,
first up, I removed the diagrams on purpose because I wanted people to either discuss or draw their own... but no matter if you found them.
Secondly, I think you're right about starting from a fairly 'grounded' perspective and moving out to 'open water'.
I'd like to know what your three triggers might be? The others have done this and discussed them and it's been pretty helpful I think. In this sense you can establish some ground... your area of inquiry. So can you do that and post them here?
So three terms/conditions... decribe what you mean by them and why you chose them. Then decribe how they begin to frame your topic... so have that in mind while you work on this I reckon. Another good thing to do would be a quick etymology on each term... where it comes from and what it's respective 'parts' mean.
Also we should have a phone call this week? I'm making Friday my 4th year day, but this coming Friday I have to leave school at about 2 or three, so could also do later on Thursday too? When's a good time for you?
I have given the others your blog address, and am sorry to see they haven't chipped in here yet... I'll try and encourage that. In particular I think Naomi's project will have some cross-over with yours.
Also, don't wait for people to comment before you post more here! I know from experience that if you can get into the habit of posting every day or couple of days (they can be short thoughts or whatever), that the blog can be very generative and useful for articulating things that you might not be so obviously thinking about, but that are interesting/important to the topic. Does that make sense?
L